By Any Other Name

October 8, 2015

I’ve been a little confused by some of the stuff I’ve been
reading in Christian Democracy lately. It seems there’s an idea going around
that it’s fine for a Catholic to be a Socialist so long as he doesn’t believe
in the kind of socialism that the popes have condemned.

Now the kind of socialism that the popes have condemned is
the one that tells us that all productive property (the “means of production”
the socialists call it) ought to be owned by the government (or by the public,
to make it sound kinder and gentler). That’s different than a lot of things
that get called “socialism” today.

Some people seem to think that things like welfare and food
stamps are socialism. But things like that aren’t socialism, they’re just ways
of redistributing income to help out those who wouldn’t be able to take care of
themselves otherwise. The popes have never condemned anything like that, except
to say that people shouldn’t be stuck in that situation, but have the right to
decent paying jobs. So if someone is saying that the sort of Socialism where
people get welfare until they can get decent paying work is fine by
Catholicism, then they’re right. Except that isn’t Socialism. A better name for
it would be something like Basic Human Decency.

One other thing that I’ve heard being referred to as
socialism now and then is worker owned businesses. But that’s not Socialism
either. As a matter of fact, it’s sort of the opposite of Socialism, because in
those businesses the workers have something that Socialism tells them they can’t
have: ownership of productive property. Now maybe I don’t have the right to
tell someone that he can’t call that “Socialism” if he really wants to, but he’s
sure confusing me if he does. And I just don’t know why he wants to confuse me.

Picture by Alex Akindinov

It might be that someone who thinks that worker owned
businesses are a kind of Socialism are getting Socialism confused with
collective action in the business world. But people coming together to run a
business or make a profit aren’t being socialists because of that. Otherwise,
every business partnership would be at least part socialist, and wouldn’t some
stockbrokers be surprised.

On the other hand, it may be that I’m assuming something
that I shouldn’t. See, when I talk about worker owned businesses I’m thinking
about voluntary associations. But some people might think that worker owned
businesses are such a good idea that the government should force everyone into
one of those businesses. Now the problem with that is that owning property
means that you have some measure of dominion over it, and it just doesn’t seem
possible that you could be forced to own something and, at the same time,
really own it. Sure, you might get a piece of paper saying you’re a part owner
of the business, but it seems to me that, in that situation, the government
would really be the owner, and you would be the unhappy subject of forced
labor. You might be better off financially than you would otherwise be, but
that’s one of the things that the popes criticize about Socialism: it presumes
that material benefit is all there is to life.

So I get nervous when I hear the word “Socialism.” The
person using the word might have a good heart, and be thinking of a world where
everyone’s needs are taken care of. But I’ll bet that a whole lot of my needs
would be taken care of if I was put in a zoo, and when someone comes at me with
the word “Socialism” I can’t help but worry that he’s thinking about pushing me
around.